If you really don't care about this tragedy, you are a sick, sick person. There's lots of things to make fun of at Uncyc. Mass murder that isn't in the distant past isn't one of them. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean not writing stuff about mass murders such as waco or 9/11 or making fun of the genocide in africa right? Uncyclopedia is above that. PsychoMedic 03:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that template was made so that IPs could spam it across several hundred pages in the blink of an eye. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly clever enough to turn this into a humorous subject, but is purposefully leaving it blank the right answer? I don't think so. Uncyclopedia's supposed to poke fun at the most severe and horrible subjects no matter the time frame. That's what makes the site so edgy and funny. The idea of waiting a little while for emotions to cool down, as I somehow doubt that 9/11 and Hitler are exactly cooled subjects for most people. Terinije 16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Light this article up. Remeber that nobody cares, so write about this event, it is funny that someone would do this it was so stupid that is why you have to make fun of it. Virginia Tech is a bad university anyways, who cares about these losers. People that go to Virginia Tech have low highschool GPA's and SAT's, so rip them apart just like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden. People are so stupid so let them know it, this is the best time, take them while they're down. Virginia Tech is a horrible university. It's not like it was MIT, Harvard, or Princeton, this is VT it is pathetic and is everyone involved, especially Ho Chi Minh, I mean Cho Seung-Hui, which is a really stupid name.

Fuck you, you piece of shit

Hey, anonymous ip. go fuck yourself...

it'll take a long time till it's ok to make any form of humorous reference to this. only now are humorous WTC gifs appearing.

Err... go and look on encyclopedia dramatica, the jokes have already started.

32 people died, and you want jokes about it? generally nobody cares. but here, it's best to just leave it along.

What about all the people that died on 9/11? And yet uncyclopedia has an article on that!

if you want to offend somebody, piss off muslims. that's offensive, and they hate us.
either way, don't make jokes about this. it just isnt funny...
ONX 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree it should be banned from existing, but Mr Anon up there (who presumably believes what he's said is funny?) has very nicely illustrated why it should be protected. It's not too difficult to write something somewhere and show it to an admin to get it put up. I'd be oddly proud if anyone could think of anything genuinely funny to say right now - I certainly can't. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a crack about the motive being that the shooter's dad made him do a weekend triple shift at the grocery store, but that's not enough to make an article out of. Oh well. Eventually when this page is unprotected I'll squeeze that in somewhere. --Hrodulf 00:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As with anything, Uncyclopedia is really not an encyclopedia that anyone can edit since it's controlled by a few selected authoritarian individuals who choose what stays and what doesn't. Whatever happened to our Second Amendment... "the right to keep and arm bears shall not be infriged."? If Uncyclopedia is truly an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, than articles should not be banned on the opinions of certain individuals.
--Usfirstgov 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the amendment you wanted to quote? Anyway, I'd like to point out that at this point in time, nothing about this entire mess could be considered within sight of funny, and even after quite a while, I expect it'll be difficult to make funny. As such, to save us the headache of "delete delete delete" ad infinitum, we're just going to make it off limits. —MajorSirHinoaprepare for trouble • make it double? 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

dont write anything until there wont be public outcry for it. its screwed up, and there is NO funny way to say anything. he left a post on 4chan before. second, he's now a meme on /b/. just don't include it here for a while, until we've forgotten about it (or michael moore makes a movie of it)

Look at the encyclopedia dramatica page for the Virginia Massacre the first joke on the page that's actually funny is the comment about an 'azn' carried out the worst shooting spree in American history saying that white america should be ashamed. It then goes on to say "Over 4000 jews were absent on the day of the shootings. Coincedence? You decide" These jokes aren't making fun of the victims or really saying anything *that* distastefull they're just making fun of other things namely the sterotype that asians are better workers than white people and the fact that people will construct a conspiracy theory out of pretty much anything.

Now admittedly the article then goes on and becomes a lot more distastefull however humour on ED has always been a different sort of humour to the one on Uncylopedia, however the parts of the article I find distastefull on ED are similar to the kind of parts I find distastefull in the Uncyclopedia entry for 9/11.

This is terrible. Somebody think of something funny quickly. Or is there a reason why this shooting is more tragic than the thousands and thousands of people that die in conflicts and disasters outside the U.S.? Al-Pita 08:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It happened in a place where it was unexpected and it happened to US citizens, so for better or worse to some people that's more of a tragedy. Hrodulf 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not like we're making fun of those conflicts and disasters. Why don't you take a look at this template:

Free Rice of the UN World Food Program: play some games, feed hungry people

That was on our Main Page at the times of those disasters, and... wait a minute, only ONE of those was in America! Looks like we do give a shit about the rest of the world! So, asshole, why don't you take your motherfucking blind anti-Americanism and shove it up your ass while we treat a terrible American tragedy with the respect it deserves. Fuck you. --» Sir SavethemoosesGrandCommandingOfficer ... holla atcha boy» 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Showing our support for Virginia Tech is the right thing to do. Thanks to all who can put aside their own needs to stop and think about what VT has been through - for the grace of God, go I. DameGUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1) I hardly think V-Tech cares about Internet sites making fun of what happened 2)I think you meant 'wrong' in your title, but whatever. --jmrepetto 18:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What a sick, sad world we live in. :,-(--71.203.147.175 20:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

heh, didnt you see that guy's talk on his video tape? he said that inspiring others the only purpose for it... and, he claimed to be Jesus, iirc. nothing weird about that ;) --Haigejobu 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this message box Medvedev, I will suck you off any time you like. I vote to put this on the article's page to make fun of all the hypocrites on Uncyclopedia. Or is your hypocrisy too fresh in your minds to be mocked, too? Azzo 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't. I have contributed almost nothing to Uncyclopedia, but I read it daily and I'm getting mad at all the hypocrisy on this talk page. You are probably right though, we are repeating the same arguments over and over again. :( Azzo 08:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

About whether to make an article about this or not, just to settle the controversy once and for all. --jmrepetto 18:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

IRAQ HAD 150 DEATHS OVER THIS PAST WEEK!!!--00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no controversy. Uncyclopedia has standards and will not have an article mocking a tragedy fresh in our minds. Sorry that it happened in America, thus invalidating its severity. Next time any of your countries experience the worst mass shooting in their histories, give me a link to a related foundation and I will gladly provide it on the front page. Until then, shut the fuck up. Talk page locked. --» Sir SavethemoosesGrandCommandingOfficer ... holla atcha boy» 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Locking the talk page and not giving us the chance to say our opinions lies very close to the fascistic border of ridiculousness, Savethemooses. What exactly makes you think that we wouldn't support a funny article about a tragedy in our countries? As a matter of fact, you seem completely unable to realise that there are people out there which are not narrow-minded nationalists like you guys appear to be. Azzo 13:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Having written two pieces about Hitler and a few pieces about the Holocaust here on Uncyclopedia, let me just say that there is always a humorous approach to any subject, no matter how tragic; some people enjoy dark humor. But it has taken us 60+ years to be able to make jokes about the Holocaust, and even then it's a sensitive subject. The key here is time. It's absolutely cruel to begin poking fun at things without allowing time for mourning and healing. We may never actually make a page to satirize this subject, and I'm fine with that. But what I'm not fine with is people calling us hypocrites because we refuse to be assholes. If anything, you people are the hypocrites. How dare you expect us to get rid of our "offensive" material on Asperger's Syndrome or September 11th and then cry because we're not making fun of the loss of 32 people. Go fuck yourselves. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the tragedy is fresh in our minds, and it would be disrespectful to the victims' families if we wrote about it now. Like I said, there will come a time when we'll look back on it and make fun of it, but now is not that time. Now is a time to be respectful and have some class. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You people sicken me. All of you on your soapboxes crying out "hypocrisy." I personally agree with the latter, while some will say that it's bureaucratic bullshit and that there is absolutely no way we should be selective in what gets serious and what doesn't. But consider this, if it was your child getting killed, would you want some stupid article on a site (that enough people use to actually make it matter) making fun of it? Yes, Iraq is full of death, and no one is disrespecting that. There is no article on Uncyclopedia making fun of them either. There is no Uncyclopedia article making fun of the victims of 9/11, and the page for it is indeed distasteful, but only in the National Crank Call Day part. Everything else is satire. It's not making fun of the people, it's satiring the situation. There is no way to satire this situation. Columbine straddles that line, and this is almost three times worse, plus in recent memory. I realize that I most likely won't change anyone's mind (and will indeed most likely get flamed for preaching about not preaching), but whether or not it's because of anti-Americanism, overt thirst for fairness and equality, or some other such ideal, but is it really so wrong to allow this, to allow more people to give to the people who have lost something? Perhaps we should put a link on all tragedy articles that helps give back, I don't know. But all I know is that satire, which is what the uncyclopedia began as, does not require people to be not serious all the time. There's a time and place for everything. If you were at a funeral, would you start making fun of the person in the casket? No. The people here are still in early stages of grieving, and it is not wrong to allow them a time of peace. They have enough coming at them with the media frenzy that this will only pour salt in the wound.--SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well-said, guys. There's really no humor to be mined from this situation. You can make jokes, but they'll be completely reliant on shock value, and those kinds of jokes generally suck, regardless of the subject matter. Any fucking moron can make a "shocking" joke. That's part of why Carlos Mencia is such a fucking hack. But I digress.
Uncyclopedia prides itself on rewarding good writing and smart comedy. We have standards, and that means that we won't exploit any tragedy for the purposes of a cheap laugh. There's no article (and if there is I'll delete it) mocking the victims of Darfur. In terms of scale, obviously, the VT Massacre is nowhere near Darfur, but it's a tragedy nonetheless. No intelligent, right-minded person would find any joke about either funny. And just because it happened in America doesn't make it any less credible. 32 innocent people died. Most of them were American. A few of them weren't. One of them was a Romanian-born Israeli and a survivor of the Holocaust. To insult his memory with a tasteless, unfunny, piece of shit article would be wrong.
In summary, this article will NOT be changed for the foreseeable future. End of fucking argument. --» Sir SavethemoosesGrandCommandingOfficer ... holla atcha boy» 03:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What argument? Who's arguing? Are any of you even listening to each other? Yes, "you people" are apalled by our people's barbarism. Yes, we're all America-hating Aspies. Yes, Uncyclopedia doesn't have a single article about anything remotely offensive. OKAY. We get it, "you people" are upset. Now shut up. --Medvedev(scream) 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that I, myself, have read the entire page. Whether or not you have is a different story. All I know is that I've seen a couple of sadistic psychos who have said to rejoice in the wake of this tragedy, which is what it is, no matter how much anyone wants to belittle it. Then there's the bleeding hearts (who I am a part of, I admit it) who think it's their job to preach to the world. Whatever you are, whether you hate America or not, that's not the issue. What is an (if not the) issue is that apparently some people think that if tragedies were to occur in their country and there were an article written about it, they would not care. Put it this way. Say all of a sudden, a suicidal maniac jumps out of a building in France or the UK or Vietnam or the Middle East, whatever. Say this person causes a bus to carreen into a public school, killing 50 children. Would this be funny? No, it would most certainly not be, even if the situation seems ready to possibly be made the punching bag of jokes. It's just not going to work. I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that "nationalism" or "patrotism" has anything to do with anyone feeling that this tragedy should be honored. It's just common sense, which is actually in dangerously short supply nowadays.--SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 01:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ljlego, you see the world in black and white. (1) There's a bunch of alternatives to being either a "sadistic psycho" who "rejoices in the wake of this tragedy", or a "bleeding heart". Just like for any other tragedy, one can write something funny about it without being offensive. For example: UnNews:Virginia_Tech_gunman_was_"Probably_Muslim"_say_authorities. (2) Why on earth do you people find it so hard to believe that I grieve as much for tragedies which happen in my country as for those which happen in other countries? I find it very worrying that you grieve more for the deaths of people of your own nationality... it is the essence of war... Azzo 07:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, Ljlego, we get that you're upset over this. I understand that the US - like Europe - has a much thinner skin to civilian deaths than, say, Israel. However, hurling insults all over the place isn't helping. --Medvedev(scream) 08:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I truly am. I was reading over what I said, and it does indeed seem laden with an accusatory tone that is undeserved by most. And for that I apologize. And in response to Azzo, I don't grieve based on nationality. But mostly in response to Medvedev, I just wish to apologize to anyone I may have offended with the rather blatant accusations and insults found in my response. These things have a bad habit of bringing out the worst in most people, myself included. I once again offer my amends.--SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it has been long enough for someone to write an article on this (I have a neat idea). People are already exploiting this tradegy for political gain which is sickening so I think we can finally write something on it, instead of something that basically says "We are pussies too afraid to make fun of this tradegy but not above making fun of everything else. Please be serious about this even though we are never serious about anything on this site."
22:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Get some more articles under your belt first, young n00b. Don't tackle this before you're good and ready (to be probably banned by someone sensitive...) -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 22:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you should try less hot-button issues first, get your feet wet (you know what else is wet? never mind). But I'd like to hear your idea. For the hell of it. I won't steal it *eyes flit around room suspiciously* swear! Seriously though, let me know, and I could defend you should that be needed.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please be serious about this even though we are never serious about anything on this site." Clearly, you must be new here. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 01:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's been long enough, but that's just my opinion. I'm going to start a forum on it and see what others think. --Hrodulf 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)